Laserfiche WebLink
VARIANCE APPLICATION 71-65 <br />ERICKSON PROPERTIES CORP. - (Continued) <br /> <br />The 1V[ayor stated he was in favor of granting a variance; that identification from <br />the Freeway is most important; that the size of the ~nvestment in the business <br />is a very vital thing, not only to the business, but to the City; that after viewing <br />the pictures presented~ he believed the sign could be less than 80 feet high and <br />still be adequate, <br /> <br />Councilman Yamamoto stated that the ordinance was passed in order to rid the <br />City of too many signs; that any sign goes up for economic reasons; that he would <br />like to go along with the request~ but because of the ordinance could not. <br /> <br />Councilman Markel stated that not more than six months ago the sign ordinance <br />was discussed~ and Unless Council follows it, it is not worth the paper it is written <br />on. <br /> <br />Councilman Villa stated that this is a variance application; that this procedure <br />was set up to make exceptions possible; and that it has been proven to him that <br />there is a hardship° <br /> <br />Councilman Herrin stated that this type of ordinance destroys the ability of an <br />enterprise to advertise what they have for sale; that it is important that the <br />private sectors of the economy have the ability to make a profit, which bears <br />heavily on their ability to pay taxes by which the Government continues to operate. <br /> <br />The City Manager stated that there is no legal procedure by which a variance <br />can be granted because of a hardship; that there are specific reasons for granting <br />of a variance, and they all depend upon equality of treatment. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated that a variance, when granted, should not be at war <br />with the underlying concept of the ordinance that has been enacted. The ordinance <br />says that on-premises advertising within 500 feet of a Freeway shall be less than <br />Z50' in size and shall be confined to the roof or a free-standing structure not over <br />35 feet. <br /> <br />Councilman Herrin's motion~ seconded by Councilman Villa, to uphold the decision <br />of the Planning Commission and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution <br />approving Variance Application 71-65 subject to conditions of approval as contained <br />in the Commission report, carried on the following roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Herrin, Villa~ Evans, Griset <br />Yamamoto, Patterson, Markel <br />None <br /> <br />RECESS <br /> <br />At 9:30 P. Mo, a recess was declared. <br />The meeting reconvened at 9:40 P.M. with <br />all Councilmen present° <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-143- April 3, 1972 <br /> <br /> <br />